KurtGodel

It's interesting to see how people's views have changed over the years. A hand like this certainly would have been considered anything other than a pass some time long ago. Now it seems like we are contemplating opening it at the one level. For me this is a very very clear 3♣ bid. The bid has a lot of upsides: 1) the opponents have a lot of cards in the majors, this will make it difficult for them to find the correct strain/level, sometimes the opponents will be put in a borderline situation and have to decide whether or not they should be bidding and they will get this decision wrong sometimes. 2) We might catch partner with a fit, this could lead to a cheap sacrifice or (rarely) a making game, we are telling partner about a lot of our cards and they will be in a good position to decide where we should be playing. 3) It suggests a good lead! Particularly at pairs this is worth going for the odd number, the extra trick could be huge for your side, even at IMPs you are establishing a trick, and potentially warning partner from underleading an honour. There are some downsides: 1) We could miss a cold game (or a slam) because partner will have less space to make safe game tries et cetera. 2) We push the opponents into good games they were not going to bid. I'm willing to take the risk that they will either not bid when they should or bid when they shouldn't more frequently than this happening. It's an interesting question as to what we should be pre-empting with, and how mixed a strategy we should be employing. I think unless you are very conservative you should be opening this hand 3♣, your pre-empts with x Axx xx KQTxxxx might get you to good games, but I suspect you don't pick up hands like that too often. I think at green you can really be aggressive with these 3m pre-empts. I open really a lot of junk (well depending on how much it annoys my partner) at this vul. On the hand in question we very well miss game, given that a more typical hand for this bid would have been something like x xxx xx QT9xxxx or xxx x xxx KJ9xxx. I'm not saying I would always open those hands, but I think it's definitely right to mix things up (and even pre-empt heavy...) so that the opponents are more unsure about whether or not they should enter the auction, and how well they can count the hand. It means that they have no idea when to make a speculative penalty pass for instance (which will greatly reduce the numbers that you go for). Think about it this way, your opposition are either good or they are bad. If they are good they will likely have a good constructive auction and bid to most making games, you will not be assisting them at all by bidding 3♣, on this hand if you can go for a number then they can almost definitely make game. If you play against weaker opposition then they will trip up a lot and bid on completely inappropriate hands, not correctly evaluating club wastage, club shortage, high honours (aces and kings), not knowing what is forcing and generally getting into a mess. Another question raised in this thread was: should this hand be opened at the one-level? I think the short answer is 'no', not so much because it is an 8-count (upgrade or whatever to 9/10), but it has just so little defense, it also takes up next to no space, and doesn't even really suggest a good lead. You have no real reason to give partner the impression that you can provide anything in the way of playing strength outside clubs (yes diamonds rarely), so just bid them! It could easily be winning bridge to open KJTxx Axxx x xxx at the one level, but this hand is a different kettle of fish. I think as bidding times are changing people should open their minds about opening light. I don't think we are given the opportunity to experiment with different strategies. Maybe we should try and take a few more risks and put the opponents under some pressure.

I think bid first and ask questions later. 5♣.

Great lead!

A friend told me of a grand slam he had the fortune of defending whilst holding the ace of trumps. So excited by this that he accidentally revoked and ruffed in with it. His partner later scored the KS. They had to hand those tricks back...

Have tried it. The website works reasonably well and the presentation is lovely. I anticipate that this will become popular, looking forward to adding some of my regular partners. One small problem I encountered: I accidentally hit pass, and then didn't have the opportunity to undo this. I can see the rationale for not doing this (you've seen your partner's cards), but given that this isn't competitive anyway, does this matter?

Works for me. Let me know if you feel like giving it a go Ambrose. Seems to only be of any use if you have 'friends'.

The problem with leading the queen is that declarer could have something like A xx AKQTxxx Kxx, and now when you lead the queen the contract is cold, this has all the disadvantages of lead the A♣ but none of the advantages. Whereas if you had led the ace you could now switch to hearts. I don't think a spade can be right, it could easily be that declarer has a positional holding but no good way of getting to dummy. It would suck to lead a spade if declarer had something like AQx x AKQTxxx Kx. I think I will just try a diamond and hope that declarer cannot cash. Could easily be wrong though.

Sometimes I play I polish-style club and it would go something like 1♣ - (2♦) - 3♥ (xfer GF, showing 6 and a good suit) - 3♠ - 3NT (serious slam try) and now you'll definitely get there, but if you bid 4♣ then it might be a bit more tricky. IMO opener will likely push with such a good hand, knowing partner is GF with a good suit.

I think I would bid 2NT - transfer - exclusion. Thought about it for a while, and whilst you don't always have 13 tricks if p has all the keycards you normally have at least good play for the contract. Even if P has something gross like Qx AJx AQJx KQJx it's still on a ruffing finesse. It's also worth noting that if P doesn't have the right number that 6 is always making. I mean the hand above turning A♦ into 2 red queens and a red jack and you are there. I think when people answer these problems they shouldn't just say: "and then I bid exclusion and grand is there", I think one should have to demonstrate that by bidding exclusion you don't get to crappy grands when P doesn't have this hand.

Declarer could also have a seventh club. Or have KJ of spades = a double dummy trump squeeze. edited: obviously double trump squeeze fails as the KJ of spades would need to be in dummy.

Quite cool that you can construct the hands so confidently from the auction. South must have something like - HJxx Axx AKQJxx possibly moving one of the diamonds into another one of the suits. I feel like p must have some shortage to bid 4♠, so it is overwhelmingly likely that it will be in clubs. So all we lose is: at most one trump trick, at most two diamond tricks and a club. On a lucky day the queen of diamonds is onside, or in partner's hand. Partner might even have a club void. We may not have a trump loser either. So to me that looks like -1100 on a bad day, -200 on a very good day (probably just a dream). I like those odds, and am willing to pay off to South not having their bid once in a while. I would guess we normally go for 800. Can't really see how we go for more than 1100.

I'm afraid everyone was being sarcastic about bidding grand slam force, you are quite right that it would be ridiculous on this occasion, not just for the reason you stated, but also because it's not immediately obvious where 13 tricks are coming from. Welcome to the forum :)

Yeah Justin, how can you not know this convention? Jeez, thought you were supposed to be a good player. All the top players are using it :P Barely a day goes by when I don't whip out GSF. How else can you get to grand when partner opens a weak 2S and you have AJx xxx xxx xxxx? It really sharpens your card play too, I seem to be playing 5NT one hand in six, it feels like whenever I play 3NT now that I *have* to make 11 tricks - it just feels weird otherwise. Blackwood is for children, Josephine is for men.

Neat hand, a real headache to think through even look at all the cards!

Was going to bid 3NT with break in tempo, don't really know what to do now. 3♦ feels strange with so many tricks. I don't really know what the pause suggests, probably lacking the values for a negative double/2C and has no heart stop.

I will double, 3NT is just wrong, for it to make we need: clubs to come in (partner to have 3 and for them to split, partner to have Qx(x) and for them to split, or xxxx and for them to split), another quick trick.

We are vul, they are not. P deals and passes, RHO bids 2H and that ends the auction. Your guess: Kxxx Jxxx AQx Kx You have the additional information that you have the greatest number of points at the table (it's a robot tourney). I think that any non trump lead could be right. Btw the spot cards really are tiny. Your second highest trump is the five, so no complaints of how you can't plan for some ridiculous trump promo.

I would recommend David Bird's 'Bridge Squeezes for Everyone' I found it a lot more readable and helpful than Love. If you want millions of examples then I would get Anthony Moon's 'Simple Squeezes' or 'Double and Double Clash Squeezes', but the latter of which is so full of examples and exotic oddments that it might be off putting.

I think it probably has to be penalties as there is no guarantee that clubs is even opener's suit. Might be very difficult to bid with lots of clubs. Perhaps you could play it as takeout but still have 4C as natural. I think on this occasion I would pray that p just bids 3NT, as this is going to be very difficult for them to bid over and when it drifts four or five off we must have a good score. The game is up once I pass 3C and we haven't really gained anything, depending on what structure we play over 2NT I might just deny major length and try to play 3NT. I don't really want to play 4M though, as this might actually get doubled and I don't really want to go to 5C. If partner just smolens then I think we will be okay in 3NT, but if they have millions of major suit cards then we are in trouble. Likewise depending on what my treatment is for transfers I would consider doing what I can to just try and play 3NT. P has not managed to open a weak two at this vul so there is a very very good chance that if we complete we will just hear 3NT on the way back. Having thought about it, I feel that at IMPs 2NT is probably the most +ev bid. That being said I wouldn't try this against fish (apart from it being a bit mean) I have been doubled many a time opening 2NT by some random flat 18...

Very nice! This sort of position is really rare.

To me partner has complete rubbish when they bid 4S and this hand just even slightly in their range. You can't have good trumps a solid control and a singleton... What would 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ - 4♥/4♠ have been?

Pass: Absolutely never, people who pass hands like this are the sort that are complaining that they don't get cards often enough. 1C: Depends what system I am playing, I normally play that this doesn't really show clubs, so that's probably out. If I do happen to be playing better minor then I still wouldn't do this, I don't think it achieves much, sure it directs the lead, but partner doesn't take a minor suit bid so seriously. 3C: At matchpoints I will do this lots as it will get the lead in. 1NT: At IMPs or vs a pair I am comfortable psyching against in matchpoints. I wish 2NT would have occurred to me. Must be a huge winner at IMPs.

Tbh, I was surprised that you only drop 0.5 IMPs per board for leading a club. IMPs doesn't mean make most aggressive possible lead. I also think that AS scores better in the sim than irl because you have saved declarer a guess sometimes if they are missing JS (and sometimes other cards). I think I would probably lead a heart, although a diamond could easily be right.

I must say this book (and the sequel) is one of my favourites. Yes it's not perfect (some of the explanations require you to do a bit of leg work - and I think one or two of the hands are incorrect) but it is fantastic for introducing you to some plays you may not have seen before (not normally technical ones). Probably the best thing about it is the sheer number of problems given. If you do them all over and over again it will make a huge difference to your declarer play if you are advanced-expert. I was a bit surprised to hear that the problems have been borrowed from other sources, particularly Kelsey, as I'm fairly confident I have most of the books that he has written and cannot spot the duplicates. That being said all the hands probably fade into a blur when you've played so many. I don't really mind that the explanations aren't that clear, I think it encourages you to think your way through them properly rather than to superficially skimp over them. I don't really have any problems with the quality of translation either. I think if you want a book that improves your card play and you are in one of the higher skill ranges then it is the best for getting the job done. I think little can replace the sheer volume and range of problems. Yes I will concede that there are some better written books, but most of them focus on specific themes (normally squeeze play) or are lacking in examples. Another thing I would say is that the problems seem quite applicable to actual play, and involve the sort of 'bread and butter' situations in bridge: managing entries, maintaining trump control, cutting the opponents' communication, arranging the timing of plays etc... rather than focusing on impractically rare plays (when was the last time any of you executed a smother play/compound guard squeeze/devil's coup?) or aesthetic plays. In summary it is without a doubt one of the best books for the practical task of improving your card play, but if you are looking for something that is more organised or feels more didactic look elsewhere. I think in years to come it will be regarded as a classic. If you are an Advanced-expert+ player then I would point you in the direction of some of my favourites: Bridge with the Blue Team - Pietro Forquet (also extremely good because there are so many hands, an extremely inspiring text, you can see some of the greatest players of all time make some truly spectacular plays, and the hands are for the most part doable as problems) The Art of Declarer Play - Tim Bourke & Justin Corfield (very good for lots of the technical endings, makes you think a lot about more delicate endplays as well as going into great depth when it comes to counting out the hand/guessing the count of the hand) Adventures in Card Play - Hugh Kelsey & Geza Ottlik (in my opinion the best bridge book ever written, it shows you just how much is possible in this game with by far and away the most beautiful hands ever composed, it is for the most part of limited practical use)

I must confess at the table I would have ducked the first club and then tried ducking a diamond after in with a heart. Although it seems like Justin's analysis is much better, it seems very unlikely that we can't build 5 diamond tricks. It seems like to lead a club on this auction almost guarantees four of them.